For criticizing this graph, which has repeatedly been exposed as a total fraud, Dr. Tim Ball became one of Mann's legal targets, though the case has obviously not gone as Mann planned.
In addition to having his case thrown out, Mann has also been ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada to pay Dr. Ball's legal fees. This is substantial because Mann's case against Dr. Ball has been in the courts for nine years, and has racked up millions of dollars in costs.
"Not only did the court grant Ball's application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball," Principia-Scientific reported.
This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr. Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are 'unprecedented.'"
Mann ultimately lost this pivotal case because he refused to show in open court the R2 regression numbers, or "working out" numbers, behind his hockey stick graph. The reason, of course, is that scientists have already shown that Mann's software always outputs data showing that the planet is "warming," no matter what temperature data is input into it.
"The hockey stick graph was the product of a software program that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) used to get the temperature readings that created the graph," explains Rich Welsh, writing for DavidHarrisJr.com.
"There's evidence that the software code was deliberately screwing around with the data to make it appear that temperatures were rising."
In other words, Mann's hockey stick graph is nothing more than "doctored" computer code that always outputs a hockey stick shape, no matter what data is used to perform calculations.
For more related news about Mann's hockey stick hoax, be sure to check out ClimateDepot.com.
"In the world of science, the real kind, not the kind of science that says water boils at 212 degrees (F) because of a 'consensus' of scientists, must have open access to data, so that others can take a look at it, not to call foul, but to make sure that the methods used were of the scientific method accepted by scientists everywhere, including the ones who live in those little mud huts," Welsh adds.
"That didn't happen with Mann, because the court recognized that Mann defied the judge's direct order to provide his data for public scrutiny when he refused to do so, claiming that the data belonged to Penn State and not the public, which was an absurd argument."
In truth, Mann should have been more than willing to procure the data requested of him, as this is exactly what he would have to do in order to get a paper about it published in a peer-reviewed journal. In this case, the courts would have peer-reviewed Mann's software program to see if what Dr. Ball had said about it was true or not, but Mann refused.
You can learn more about the fraud behind Mann's hockey stick graph at this link.
As Welsh points out, peer review is a rarity in the field of climate "science" because so little of what is used as "evidence" would never hold up. Instead, climate scientists rely on pal review, he contends, whereby other climate fanatics give "a wink and a nod" to the "science," in lieu of honest scrutiny.
Sources for this article include: